CHAPTER XIII
THE HELM OF THE XVth CENTURY
Up to the first years of the XVth century the helm continued to be
the principal head defence of the knight both on the battle-field
and in the joust; but from this point onwards it lost popularity
in its double capacity, and was discarded as a war defence. It
was found that the visored bascinet, armet, and salade possessed
many more qualities fitting them for use in warfare, chief amongst them being
the fact that they were less cumbersome and equally protective. The helm
being now retained for the joust only, the weight was not of so much consequence,
and the opportunity was therefore taken of adding generally to the
thickness of the plates, especially in that part of the head-piece most likely
to receive the lance shock. Doubtless the most interesting tilting helm in
England, characteristic of the early years of the XVth century, is that credited
to the ownership of King Henry V, which hangs, with his saddle and shield,
upon a beam over his tomb in the Confessor's Chapel of the Abbey Church of
Westminster (Fig. 449, a, b). We have to admit, however, that this is no
battle-helm; it was constructed especially for jousting and not for field wear,
and could not have been worn by the King on the field of Agincourt, as tradition
would have us believe. That it was worn by him at all has of late years
been denied, but solely on account of an error made by Rymer in his printed
record of it contained in the entry of the Issue Roll of the funeral expenses
of the King in 1422. The Rymer printed record reads translated: "Also
to the same Thomas [Daunt] for making of a crest and helm for the King
33^s 4^d." We have, however, to thank Sir St. John Hope, who contributed an
article to Archaeologia (vol. lxv) on the subject, for discovering an error in
Rymer that puts a different complexion on the record. Sir St. John Hope
with his usual care turned to the original Latin account only to find that the
word printed by Rymer as factura is plainly pictura. "Item eidem Thome
[Daunt] pro pictura unius creste et unius helme pro Rege xxxiijs iiijd."
Thus it is a question of the painting and not of the making of a helm; and,
as Sir St. John Hope says, "since no other helm is mentioned in the
